Dollar Question: Should wheat be our main man?

[dogman_1234]

There is debate on whether the Federal Reserve System should be shut down and we revert back tot he gold standard, where inflation is a dominant drive of the currency. Many economists have warned such system would place the dollar in a tailspin, hyperinflation or stagflation would kick in, maybe causing a recession that would prolong for years,( aka. a depression).

Here is the thing, the only thing the USD is back by is the full faith and trust of the US government. Now, raise your hands if you put total faith into the Federal Government? No, well...too bad.

Anyways, a question came about my mind:

What if instead of gold or silver, we back the US dollar with food commodities? Wheat, corn, beans, beef, etc...?

Your thoughts?

 

[riser]

The dollar backed up by Fruit Loops.. How many fruitloops do you have in the bank?

 

[chunkymonster]

Ha! The dollar might as well be backed by Fruit Loops! Fruit Loops would be more believable than "the full faith and credit" of the American government.

A return to the gold standard would be ideal to stop/solve the global economic issues. But two things, at a minimum, would need to happen before a return to the gold standard could ever be considered a remote possibility; 1) cut government spending to be equal that of tax revenues, and 2) balance the budget.

It's been a 100 years or so since American citizens have been able to use gold as legal tender, saying goodbye to paper bills on favor of gold coins may be too much of a shock.

 

[ctbaars]

Peeps! Outstanding idea OMG73!
I'll buy that ice cream cone with Two Peeps and fourty two Candy Corns please, thank you.

 

[wanamingo]

Alright, if I make about 500$ a week, and I can buy 3.375 oz of peeps for 2$ I can expect to get about 52.75 pounds of peeps. Or for the rest of the world I can get about 24 kilos of peeps.

Not going to lie, if my boss offered me 55 pounds of peeps as compensation, I would probably go home and overdose on peeps.

Death by Diabeetus.

But really the gold standard would only work if you had a finite amount of a precious resource that people want. Gold is just shiny and we apply value to it.

So 52.75 pounds of peeps in gold looks like this (1/4 oz)
http://tngold.com/gold-gallery/index.php/DVC00499

 

[dogman_1234]

What other commodity could we back ourselves with besides 'trust' or petrol?

 

[ctbaars]

Would it possible to do without money at all, in this day and age?
Credit cards and Bitcoins are money, of a sort, so they don't count.

 

[dogman_1234]

What if someone 'prints' their own money...also, what is going to back your credit card debt?

 

[dogman_1234]

I envision a world where we exchange goods and services with tangible electrons. One mole of electrons for a loaf of bread.

 

[riser]

I would microwave my peeps and expand my wealth instantiously.

1) cut government spending to be equal that of tax revenues, and 2) balance the budget.

This essentially means raise taxes a lot, cut spending as little as possible, and balance a budget with a shrinking yearly tax revenue. It can't realistically happen since the government never looks beyond a single year for budgets.

 

[ctbaars]

Water is more valuable than gold. And possibly in ten years by the ounce too of gold today.

 

[chunkymonster]

How about a hybrid currency/barter system?

 

[riser]

Ammo will always be valuable. Gold is a means to an end, whereas Ammo is the end result of something.

People get confused. "Money" is worthless; it only gets you something you want or need.

Take a person, stick them in the middle of the desert. Ask them, "Would you rather have a million dollars right now, or a lot of water?"

Ask a starving person in Africa, would you rather have money or food?

Money is only used for trading; it is worthless in the end.

 

[chunkymonster]

That's what we will have when the currency collapses. I already own gold and silver coins. When those run out I can forsee trading a box of 12 ga. shot shells for a couple of chickens and a loaf of bread in the future.

Ammo! That reminds me. I need to get some 5.56 and .45ACP.

Don't forget toilet paper and sacks of rice/beans.

 

[riser]

Walmart has Lake City 5.56 420 rounds on stripper clips in an ammo can for $150 - best deal around. Green tip military rounds.

I'm currently stocking up on 308.. I think I have around 80 or 100 rounds right now. I like to sit around 500 rounds on each caliber I have.

Toilet paper is always a good thing. Rice/beans are good too.

The buckets of food. Go to a Gun Show, they'll have them there and give you the best prices. Now, if they say it gives you like 4 days of food, it might come in a single pack that you cook and would eat over 4 days. So you have to be careful on what you get, they're not individual packages per person, it might work for 4 people at once.

I want to get one, they're like $170 for a 30 day supply. If you get the red/black named one, I forget the name, the food is really good. I was thinking about just buying those and cutting down on my food expenses every month.

 

[chunkymonster]

Unfortunately, I live in the Socialist Democracy of New Jersey and green tip (armor piercing) ammo is actually illegal to own here. 420rds AP on strippers for $150 is a GREAT price though.

One vendor at the Oaks Gun show in PA was selling 1000rds of PMC 5.56 FMJBT with a .50cal ammo can for $390. Prolly snag that at the next show if he still has it.

I've also seen the buckets of food at the shows. I'd be curious to check one out, little bit hesitant to get one, but maybe I'll snag one for a camping trip.

For food stores, check out survivalacres.com but there are tons of other sites out there.

 

[dogman_1234]

Geez, I am SOL.

Have nothing really.

Well, wonder what I could do? Solar panels? Naw, who need electricity in a dead economy?

 

[dogman_1234]

That's okay. My Tesla cannon smiles back at them.

 

[chunkymonster]

I would microwave my peeps and expand my wealth instantiously.

1) cut government spending to be equal that of tax revenues, and 2) balance the budget.

This essentially means raise taxes a lot, cut spending as little as possible, and balance a budget with a shrinking yearly tax revenue. It can't realistically happen since the government never looks beyond a single year for budgets.

Well, that's one way to balance the budget. But I'd much prefer a move back to funding the federal agencies that are only enumerated within the Constitution. If we cut any federal agency from the budget that is not spelled out as as being within the purview and powers of the federal government, the reduction in federal spending and taxes would be automatic.

We could easily say goodbye to agencies like; the National Endowment for the Arts (saving $150M+), Housing and Urban Development ($41B saved), the Department of Education ($68B saved), the Peace Corps ($375M saved), the Federal Finance and Housing Agency ($197M saved), Department of Labor ($12B saved), Social Security ($12B saved), the Environmental Protection Agency ($8B saved), the BATFE ($153M saved), Health and Human Services ($76M saved)...this list could go on and on. This short list alone cuts $130 BILLION in annual operating costs from the federal budget! NOTE - The above costs are the federal operating budgets for either 2012 or 2013 and are all annual costs.

I understand that there is absolutely no political will to make these types of cuts and the idea is unrealistic given the amount of people and businesses dependent on the government handouts and subsidies. Regardless, I would hope folks would realize that we do not have to have our taxes raised in order to control federal spending, balance the budget, and eliminate the federal deficit.

 

[Reynod]

Rice should be the new gold standard ... you can store it and food is good.

Alternatively dog kibble or canned beans.

On the above I am doing quite well.

I have 20 kilos of kibble and about 12 cans of beans and at least 20 kilos of rice in the cupboard.

Bow down before me ...

 

[johnsonma]

Well, that's one way to balance the budget. But I'd much prefer a move back to funding the federal agencies that are only enumerated within the Constitution. If we cut any federal agency from the budget that is not spelled out as as being within the purview and powers of the federal government, the reduction in federal spending and taxes would be automatic.

We could easily say goodbye to agencies like; the National Endowment for the Arts (saving $150M+), Housing and Urban Development ($41B saved), the Department of Education ($68B saved), the Peace Corps ($375M saved), the Federal Finance and Housing Agency ($197M saved), Department of Labor ($12B saved), Social Security ($12B saved), the Environmental Protection Agency ($8B saved), the BATFE ($153M saved), Health and Human Services ($76M saved)...this list could go on and on. This short list alone cuts $130 BILLION in annual operating costs from the federal budget! NOTE - The above costs are the federal operating budgets for either 2012 or 2013 and are all annual costs.

I understand that there is absolutely no political will to make these types of cuts and the idea is unrealistic given the amount of people and businesses dependent on the government handouts and subsidies. Regardless, I would hope folks would realize that we do not have to have our taxes raised in order to control federal spending, balance the budget, and eliminate the federal deficit.

We could cut our defense spending in half saving 350billion and still be outspending china almost 3 to 1.

 

[wanamingo]

The thing that blows me away about Mitts plan is The 2 trillion dollar increases with cuts to taxes....

Military spending is on par with WWII, but does it feel like it? Does it feel like we are engaged in a decade long war? Not really, no one is being asked to sacrifice anything for our wars.

It just seems bass ackwards to cut arts programs before we cut military spending. I hope that There will be a day where the USA isnt at war.

 

[chunkymonster]

We could cut our defense spending in half saving 350billion and still be outspending china almost 3 to 1.

True. We could especially cut the Army and Air Force as they are not part of the enumerated powers given to the government as defined by the Constitution. But, the Navy and Marines would need to be maintained, if not grown to make up for the loss as a result of eliminating the Army and Air Force, to fulfill the government's role of protecting the States.

 

[johnsonma]

True. We could especially cut the Army and Air Force as they are not part of the enumerated powers given to the government as defined by the Constitution. But, the Navy and Marines would need to be maintained, if not grown to make up for the loss as a result of eliminating the Army and Air Force, to fulfill the government's role of protecting the States.

I could see the Army taking the brunt of the cuts, don't think the Air Force would be as likely though. Just because of the tactical options they bring(quick response, long range strike packages, etc...).

 

[riser]

While the Constitution calls for certain things, we also need to adapt. An Air force is required today, regardless of what the Constitution calls for. This would fall into the defense of the country.

Sure, combine the Air Force, Navy, coast guard, then the Marines and Army. Problem solved.